Electoral receipt · State Assembly
URSON RUSSELL
State Assembly · ASM-73 · 2026 cycle
Funding Receipt
URSON RUSSELL · 2026 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 50 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $8,105 · 32%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $5,000 · 20%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $11,900 · 48%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Russell, Keitha Mia · Russell Properties $5,900
02 Goodman, Linda · Retired $2,000
03 Liu, Mary · Dolphin apartment $1,223
04 Amirpour, Shanin · Apex Performance Longevity Group $1,000
05 Rem, Heather · SSP Trading Inc $1,000
06 Schumaker, Kari · Sunkist Solutions $1,000
07 Sleenhof, Rob · C&R Componenets $1,000
08 Provost, Rhonda · Retired $650
09 Mills, Kevin · Bair Energies $646
10 Clemmons, Mitch · Clemmons Services Inc $500
11 Esposito, Constance · First Team Commercial $500
12 Gast, Robert · Retired $500
13 Huyck, Libby · Retired $500
14 Moorlach, John · Retired $500
15 Peters, James · GWM $500
16 Reitz, Thomas · Retired $500
17 Levendi Wines $500
18 Cagan, Paula · First American $448
19 Joseph, Judy · Retired $300
20 Larson, Richard · Novel Products LLC $300
21 Averill, Janet · Retired $250
22 Morgan, Daniel · Marterra $250
23 Copple, Janice · Retired $250
24 Kiefer, Michael · Affirm electric Incorporated $250
25 Martin, Raymond · Martin and Associates $250
Primary committee total $25,005
Source: California Secretary of State Cal-Access bulk export
Pipeline: scripts/pull_calaccess_filings.py · Dedup: latest AMEND_ID
/methodology
Pipeline: scripts/pull_calaccess_filings.py · Dedup: latest AMEND_ID
/methodology
What you're seeing. The Raised for this race total counts only money that flowed into committees clearly named for State Assembly in this cycle (e.g. "URSON RUSSELL for Assembly 2026"). The wider footprint shows every committee URSON RUSSELL controls during the same window — ballot-measure leadership PACs, future-office exploratory committees, officeholder accounts. A candidate raising large sums into non-electoral vehicles still shows where the institutional attention is. Both surfaces are honest; they answer different questions.